Today Mr Paddy Kearney came forward to give evidence to the DFP committee. Mr Kearney brought along with him Alan Mains, a former MI5 operative, who now describes himself as a security consultant. However, strangely, it appears he has now widened his expertise to financial matters.
Mr Kearney was scathing of my evidence and branded it unfounded and without a scrap of evidence.
The irony of this is that Mr Kearney then spent the remainder of his evidence session confirming everything I had told the committee.
I had informed the committee Mr Kearney was to buy Millmount- today the Mayple 10 property developer confirmed this was the case.
I consistently named Alan Mains from the very beginning, today confirmed that Alan Mains has indeed been involved in this and further it was confirmed that- as I had said- it was he who arranged for Mr Kearney to meet with Peter Robinson.
Mr Kearney refused to discuss the financial figures in terms of how much debt had been written off, yet the committee hold his audited accounts which confirms that it was in the region of 224m. Again, this confirms my evidence.
I claimed Peter Robinson lobbied on Mr Kearney’s behalf- Mr Robinson denied this- yet today Mr Kearney confirms that indeed Mr Robinson did write to Nama on his behalf.
I claimed Mr Kearney was purchasing John Miskelly’s assets. He confirmed this from his own mouth.
I claimed David Watters had been working for Nama- this has now been confirmed by Mr Kearney.
Mr Kearney stated he was taking no legal action against me. He failed to mention that he- and five others, namely Alan Mains, Peter Robinson, Frank Cushnahan, Brendan McGinn and Kevin Lagan are jointly being represented by Paul Tweed- a business partner of Brendan McGinn- and have been writing letters to Amazon trying to use every angle possible to have my book stopped.
Not one single part of my evidence has been proven false by Mr Kearney, in fact he has actually confirmed most of my evidence and has very helpfully now brought Alan Mains into the public domain in relation to the Nama conspiracy.
The tearful- and well crafted- opening statement was little more than an attempt to portray a billionaire, who cares so much about Northern Ireland that he was a tax exile, as some kind of victim. He claims my sources are out to get him. Yes, the whole Nama revelations are because some fictitious personal enemy of Paddy Kearney is jealous of him. That sounds plausible.
Mr Kearney is working in unison with at least five others- as proven by his Amazon action- to stifle and shut down any investigations into the nefarious and corrupt Nama deal. Mr Kearney even expects the committee to believe that the fact Peter Robinson met Ian Coulter and Frank Cushnahan and then two days later met him, and then sent a letter that would benefit those cooking up the plan to get themselves- and Mr Robinson- a financial kick-back, is all just a big misunderstanding.
I am keen to know exactly what part of my evidence Mr Kearney outed as malicious, unsubstantiated or unfounded?
Did I lie about Millmount? The “celebration” dinner? John Miskelly’s assets? The meeting with Robinson? Alan Mains involvement? The loans that were written off? His involvement in the Mayple 10 criminal enterprise? Robinson’s lobbying on his behalf?
The fact is that there was more substance to my evidence than anything that was put forward by Paddy Kearney or former MI5 operative Alan Mains. Mr Mains at one point referred to my sources as “informers”, well Alan Mains would know all about informers wouldn’t he, a fact he forgot to mention at the Smithwick tribunal.
One only has to watch the body language of Paddy Kearney when he was quizzed about exactly how much money had been written off for him by Cerberus. He refused to answer or discuss it. Now why was that?
Another interesting point was Ian McCrea mentioning openness from public representatives. Perhaps he should look a bit closer to home and ask his father to tell us all about the conversation at the back of his Church in relation to the Claudy bomb. Mr McCrea isn’t too quick when it comes to openness on that issue is he?
The facts are clear and unambiguous. As Mr Kearney helpfully pointed out, they are actually largely available in the public domain. For all the bluster and tearful testimony- perhaps he learnt that trick from his “advisor” who deployed the tearful testimony trick at Smithwick- Mr Kearney has not contradicted one single iota of the evidence I provided.
Their contrived strategy of damage limitation, which involved bringing Alan Mains into the equation themselves before he was outed by a current affairs programme, may have just backfired spectacularly.